[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 50 (Tuesday, April 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3634-S3642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 768. A bill to establish court-martial jurisdiction over civilians 
serving with the Armed Forces during contingency operations, and to 
establish Federal jurisdiction over crimes committee outside the United 
States by former members of the Armed Forces and civilians accompanying 
the Armed Forces outside the United States; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


         military and extraterritorial jurisdiction act of 1999

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Military and 
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999. This bill will close a legal 
loophole through which civilians who commit crimes while accompanying 
the Armed Forces overseas evade punishment. Today, when a civilian 
accompanies the military outside the United States, whether a relative, 
a dependent, or a civilian contractor--and there are many--the civilian 
is not subject to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice and does not fall under any of the general Federal criminal 
laws.
  These individuals can only be prosecuted for their crimes if the host 
country chooses to do so. However, there are many circumstances in 
which the host country does not choose to

[[Page S3635]]

prosecute. They just often do not have an interest in the case. 
Additionally, in situations such as Somalia and Haiti, when our troops 
are rapidly deployed, typically no agreement exists governing how 
civilians will be prosecuted until months into the operation. Indeed, 
many times there are no laws in effect really in those countries. So we 
believe that something must be done in this regard.
  There is a glaring deficiency here and it has come to my attention 
through a tragic incident. A U.S. Army dependent, not a soldier, living 
on an Army base in Germany, sexually molested two dependent children. 
The Army investigators found probable cause to believe that the sexual 
acts had occurred. However, under German law, no action could be taken 
against this juvenile.
  Sometimes prosecutors are restricted by legal prohibitions, and 
sometimes they just have no interest in prosecuting a case involving 
Americans.
  As of March 31, 1996, there were more than 240,000 family dependents 
and 96,000 civilian employees overseas. These persons accompany our 
troops to represent the United States, but many times they are in 
effect outside the law.
  In addition to the sexual molestation incident that I have already 
mentioned, examples of crimes that have gone unpunished due do this 
loophole are rape, assault, battery, vandalism, and drug dealing. 
Although the offenders may receive some sort of administrative 
punishment, such as being barred from certain areas of the base or 
monetary fines, these administrative noncriminal penalties are 
inadequate for the more serious violations.
  Because the military continues to rely heavily on civilian assistance 
and support, the United States must develop an appropriate and 
effective criminal process to deal with the misbehavior of civilians. 
It is important to the morale of our military forces that enlisted men 
and women working outside the United States along with civilian 
personnel do not believe that civilians who may commit a crime against 
them are beyond criminal prosecution.
  This bill would extend the reach of title 18 of the United States 
Criminal Code to include those civilians that accompany the military 
outside the United States. When one of these civilians commits an 
offense that Congress has established as a maritime crime, the U.S. 
attorney's office would have the option to exercise jurisdiction and 
prosecute the offender in the United States. The bill would employ 
title 18, United States Code section 3238, which provides that an 
accused be tried in the U.S. district court where the offender first 
appears when he is brought back to the United States.

  Finally, in order to prevent legal conflicts with a jurisdiction 
recognized by the United States, this bill only applies if the host 
country has already prosecuted or is in the process of prosecuting the 
accused.
  The need for this legislation was most recently described in a report 
submitted by the Overseas Jurisdiction Advisory Committee to the 
Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and to this Congress. This 
panel was established in section 1151 of the 1996 National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  In the act, Congress recognized this jurisdictional loophole needed 
to be examined so it established this advisory committee to study the 
problems of civilians who commit criminal acts when accompanying the 
Armed Forces overseas. This committee was composed of experts in 
military and civilian law from all branches of the armed services, the 
Department of Justice, and the State Department. The advisory committee 
found that this problem was serious enough that ``legislation is needed 
to address misconduct by civilians accompanying the forces overseas in 
peacetime settings.'' These experts believed that the jurisdictional 
void must be closed to ``maintain order and discipline.''
  The American Government must have the authority to discipline people 
it sends overseas to represent and serve this country. It is 
inconsistent with the American system of justice that a civilian 
employee working with service members and dependents of service members 
not be subject to American criminal laws. This piece of legislation is 
an important step toward recognizing the changing nature of our Armed 
Forces and making sure that the Criminal Code is keeping pace with the 
military's changing dynamic.
  As a former U.S. attorney for 12 years myself, and one who has met 
frequently with victims, nothing can be more frustrating than to see a 
person or a family victimized by some awful act and have to tell them: 
There is no law that will vindicate you. Even though under various 
other circumstances it would be a plain crime, for some technical 
reason there is not a way to legally right this wrong.
  So I believe this is an important bill. It closes a loophole 
involving more and more Americans each year. We simply do not need to 
cede away the authority to prosecute criminal acts to nations that may 
have no interest whatsoever in vindicating the rights of an American 
service man or woman who has been a victim of a crime.
  I believe this is an important act. It has broad support, the support 
of the military and support of other officials of this Government. We 
think it is a needed step and I commend it to my fellow Members of the 
Senate.
  I also want to express my appreciation for an Alabama family whose 
child was a victim of a crime, a sexual act, in a foreign country, who 
is here in this Capitol today, at the Senate today, and without whose 
support and encouragement this piece of legislation would not become 
law and would not have reached this point.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator 
Sessions, to reintroduce legislation that would close the loopholes 
that permit civilians accompanying the Armed Forces and those serving 
with the Armed Forces from evading punishment for crimes they committed 
while abroad. Under current law, many illegal acts committed abroad by 
dependents, civilian employees, and those servicing with the Armed 
Forces go substantially unaddressed by either military or civilian 
courts. Administrative punishments have proven equally inadequate to 
address this problem.
  When civilians accompany the Armed Services outside the United 
States, they are not subject to prosecution under Federal criminal law 
or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This has proven to be a 
double-edged sword. While foreign nations frequently have no interest 
in vindicating crimes committed by American civilians against other 
Americans, despite the extreme seriousness of the offense, there have 
been instances where the United States has had to turn over American 
civilians to host countries for potentially harsh punishment because of 
the absence of appropriate enforcement action. Unfortunately, this 
problem is likely to worsen as there are a large number of dependents 
overseas, and the number of civilian employees of the Armed Services 
overseas is increasing. As for those serving with the Armed Forces, 
criminal prosecutions by the military court or administrative 
alternatives sometimes simply discharge the individual and send them 
home, rather than imposing any serious punishment for a crime.
  The case that has united Senator Sessions and me behind this 
legislation is that of an Ohio resident, Amy McGough, who was stationed 
in Germany, along with her husband who is from Alabama. Mrs. McGough's 
8-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter were repeatedly raped and 
molested by a neighbor boy who was supposed to be baby-sitting them. 
While the Criminal Investigations Division of the Army found sufficient 
facts, neither the Army nor Federal prosecutors had jurisdiction to 
prosecute the case, and the German government would not intervene 
because of the age of the perpetrator.
  In such cases, our bill would guarantee that civilians, or those 
serving with the Armed Forces in certain circumstances, who commit an 
illegal act punishable under the Federal law by more than a year's 
imprisonment, will be subject to the special maritime or territorial 
jurisdiction of the United States for prosecution by a military court 
or for Federal criminal prosecution. Neither civilians connected with 
the Armed Forces nor those serving with the Armed Forces abroad accused 
of rape, child molestation or some other serious felony will simply be 
allowed to resign or leave the foreign country to avoid punishment. 
They will be subject to Federal prosecution.

[[Page S3636]]

  We need to make sure that an appropriate criminal process exists in 
these circumstances. Letting these individuals back on America's 
streets does little to hold them accountable, and nothing to protect 
our communities here at home. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague, 
Senator Sessions, who is also a member of the Armed Services Committee, 
in working with me to introduce this legislation to address our mutual 
concern.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 769. A bill to provide a final settlement on certain debt owed by 
the city of Dickinson, ND, for the construction of the bascule gates on 
the Dickinson Dam; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


         the dickinson dam bascule gates settlement act of 1999

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dickinson 
Dam Bascule Gates Settlement Act of 1999 and I am pleased that my 
colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, is an original cosponsor 
of the bill. This legislation would permit the Secretary of the 
Interior to accept a one-time, lump-sum payment for the city of 
Dickinson, ND, in lieu of the annual payments required under the city's 
existing repayment contract for construction of the ``bascule gates'' 
on the Dickinson Dam on the Heart River. This bill would resolve a 
long-standing issue for the city of Dickinson and the Bureau of 
Reclamation. The Dickinson Dam Bascule Gates Settlement Act is nearly 
identical to a bill I introduced last June, and it is my hope that the 
Senate will quickly consider and pass this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. President, the history of the bascule gates is long and complex. 
The Bureau of Reclamation constructed the Dickinson Dam on the Heart 
River in 1949 and 1950 to supply water to the city of Dickinson, and 
for flood control, recreation, and other purposes. The reservoir 
created by this dam was named Patterson Lake in about 1960.
  The need for additional water supply for the city was identified in 
the early 1970's, and the bascule gates were constructed in the early 
1980's, to provide additional water storage capacity in Lake Patterson. 
At the time, the city expressed reservations over the cost of the 
bascule gates and the viability of the gates, since the city was not 
aware of any other location in a northern climate in which the gates 
had been tested or proven. In 1982, shortly after the gates were 
operational, a large ice block caused excessive pressure on the 
hydraulic system, causing it to fail. Construction modifications were 
made to the gate hydraulic system and a de-icing system were added in 
1982, adding further costs to the project.
  In 1991, the city began to receive its municipal water supply from 
the Southwest Pipeline Project, a project constructed in part with 
funds provided for North Dakota's statewide water project, the Garrison 
Diversion project, which is another Bureau of Reclamation project. The 
Southwest Pipeline brings high-quality water from Lake Sakakawea on the 
Missouri River to the city of Dickinson and other communities in 
southwest North Dakota. The water is of much higher quality that the 
water from the city's previous supply from Lake Patterson, and has 
helped spur economic development in the region. While the citizens of 
the area now benefit from a higher quality water supply, the city no 
longer benefits from the additional water supply provided by the 
bascule gates. The result is the city is paying for two Bureau of 
Reclamation projects, while it is using water from only one of those 
projects for its municipal water supply. The city has repaid more than 
$1.2 million to the United States for the bascule gates, despite the 
fact that the gates now provide almost no direct benefit to the city.
  The city has previously investigated alternatives to the current 
situation. The city has discussed the option of assuming title to the 
dam and bascule gates, as well as attempting to negotiate a new 
agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation administratively. However, 
because the terms of the existing contract are outlined statutorily, 
new legislation is required to make any changes to the current 
repayment contract.

  The legislation I am introducing today would do three primary things. 
First, it would permit the Interior Secretary to accept a lump-sum 
payment of $300,000 from the city and terminate the remaining annual 
payments required under the existing repayment contract. This is an 
increase from last year's legislation, which called for a $150,000 
final settlement. Enacting this legislation would end the issue of 
paying for the construction of these gates for both the city and the 
Federal government.
  Second, my bill would require the Secretary to reallocate the costs 
of operation and maintenance for the bascule gates and the Dickinson 
Dam. The bill does not prescribe any particular reallocation formula, 
but does require the Secretary to consider the fact that the current 
benefits of the dam and bascule gates are primarily for flood control, 
recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes. In my view, operation and 
maintenance costs should be borne by those who benefit from a 
particular project.
  Finally, my bill would permit the Secretary to enter any appropriate 
water service contracts in the future if the city or any other entity 
uses water from Patterson Lake for municipal water supply or for other 
purposes. It is only fair that if the city benefits in the future from 
the water stored behind the bascule gates that we preserve an option 
for recovering additional costs from those beneficiaries.
  Mr. President, this legislation represents a win-win situation for 
the residents of the Dickinson area and for the Federal Government. I 
hope this Congress will carefully study this issue and quickly pass 
this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 769

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Dickinson Dam Bascule Gates 
     Settlement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) in 1980 and 1981, the Bureau of Reclamation constructed 
     the bascule gates on top of the Dickinson Dam on the Heart 
     River, North Dakota, to provide additional water supply in 
     the reservoir known as Patterson Lake for the city of 
     Dickinson, North Dakota, and for additional flood control and 
     other benefits;
       (2) the gates had to be significantly modified in 1982 
     because of damage resulting from a large ice block causing 
     excessive pressure on the hydraulic system, causing the 
     system to fail;
       (3) since 1991, the City has received its water supply from 
     the Southwest Water Authority, which provides much higher 
     quality water from the Southwest Pipeline Project;
       (4) the City now receives almost no benefit from the 
     bascule gates because the City does not require the 
     additional water provided by the bascule gates for its 
     municipal water supply;
       (5) the City has repaid more than $1,200,000 to the United 
     States for the construction of the bascule gates, and has 
     been working for several years to reach an agreement with the 
     Bureau of Reclamation to alter its repayment contract;
       (6) the City has a longstanding commitment to improving the 
     water quality and recreation value of the reservoir and has 
     been working with the United States Geological Survey, the 
     North Dakota Department of Game and Fish, and the North 
     Dakota Department of Health to improve water quality; and
       (7) it is in the public interest to resolve this issue by 
     providing for a single payment to the United States in lieu 
     of the scheduled annual payments and for the termination of 
     any further repayment obligation.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Bascule gates.--The term ``bascule gates'' means the 
     structure constructed on the Dam to provide additional water 
     storage capacity in the Lake.
       (2) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Dickinson, 
     North Dakota.
       (3) Dam.--The term ``Dam'' means Dickinson Dam on the Heart 
     River, North Dakota.
       (4) Lake.--The term ``Lake'' means the reservoir known as 
     ``Patterson Lake'' in the State of North Dakota.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the 
     Bureau of Reclamation.

     SEC. 4. FORGIVENESS OF DEBT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall accept a 1-time 
     payment of $300,000 in lieu of the existing repayment 
     obligations of the City under the Bureau of Reclamation 
     Contract No. 9-07-60W0384, dated December 19, 1988, toward 
     which amount any payments

[[Page S3637]]

     made by the City to the Secretary on or after June 2, 1998, 
     shall be credited.
       (b) Ownership.--Title to the Dam and bascule gates shall 
     remain with the United States.
       (c) Costs.--
       (1) In general.--In consultation with the City and the 
     State of North Dakota, the Secretary shall reallocate 
     responsibility for the operation and maintenance costs of the 
     Dam and bascule gates.
       (2) Consideration of benefits.--The reallocation of costs 
     shall reflect the fact that the benefits of the Dam and 
     bascule gates are mainly for flood control, recreation, and 
     fish and wildlife purposes.
       (d) Water Service Contracts.--The Secretary may enter into 
     appropriate water service contracts if the City or any other 
     person or entity seeks to use water from the Lake for 
     municipal water supply or other purposes.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from North 
Dakota, Mr. Conrad, in introducing a bill to provide a final settlement 
on certain debts owned by the City of Dickinson, North Dakota, to the 
Bureau of Reclamation. The legislation is virtually identical to that 
introduced during the last Congress.
  The Dickinson Dam Bascule Gates Settlement Act will provide long 
overdue relief to the citizens of Dickinson. Let me briefly explain why 
the debt liquidation is needed and appropriate. For one thing, the 
Bureau of Reclamation built a faulty project. The debt was incurred by 
the City of Dickinson for construction of a dam with gate structures 
which never worked properly. In addition, the need for the dam to help 
provide a reliable local water supply was eclipsed by the construction 
of the Southwest Pipeline, a project of the same Bureau of Reclamation.
  The legislation itself is actually quite simple. It would permit the 
Secretary of the Interior to accept one final payment from the City of 
Dickinson in place of a series of payments now required by city's 
current repayment contract.
  My colleague has described in some detail the complicated and 
frustrating story of the dam and bascule gates project. Let me 
underscore a couple of major points. In 1949 and 1950, the dam was 
constructed to provide an adequate water supply for the City of 
Dickinson, as well as some flood control and recreation. The bascule 
gates were added to augment storage capacity in the reservoir called 
Patterson Lake. Despite the city's concerns about the use of a gate 
structure on the dam, which had not previously been used in a northern 
climate, the gates actually failed in 1982. The ensuing modifications 
increased the cost of the project.
  Another twist in the story is that by 1991 the city no longer needed 
the Patterson Lake water supply. As noted, it began to receive its 
water supply from the Southwest Pipeline. This is a major distribution 
network of the Garrison Diversion Unit, another Bureau of Reclamation 
project. This system provides both higher quality and more reliable 
water supplies than the city's previous supply from Patterson Lake.
  Consequently, it makes no sense for the City of Dickinson to have two 
water supply systems when it needs only one--especially when the first 
system was a faulty one. The city has already repaid more than $1.2 
million for the bascule gates, even though they now provide virtually 
no benefit to the city.
  Last year, I was able to pass an appropriations amendment to provide 
partial relief for the city's debt. Unfortunately, this provision 
stalled in the conference committee. The North Dakota delegation also 
added an amendment for more complete debt relief to a package of water 
management projects, which did not pass in the last days of 1998 
session.
  Thus, we need to provide authority for Dickinson to settle its debt, 
to reallocate costs for operation and maintenance of the bascule gates 
and Dickinson Dam, and to permit the Secretary of the Interior to enter 
into appropriate water service contracts with the city for any 
beneficial use of the water in Patterson Lake. The proposed legislation 
will address those three objectives while also providing a fair 
settlement for the Federal Government and the City of Dickinson.
  I want to commend my colleague from North Dakota for his leadership 
and cooperation in developing a sound solution to this problem. In 
term, I urge my colleagues to consider and pass this needed 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Inouye, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 770. A bill to provide reimbursement under the medicare program 
for telehealth services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                THE COMPREHENSIVE TELEHEALTH ACT OF 1999

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by 
Senator Daschle, Senator Wellstone, Senator Inouye, Senator Harkin, and 
Senator Murkowski to introduce legislation to help improve health care 
delivery in rural and underserved communities throughout America 
through the use of telecommunications and telehealth technology.
  Telehealth encompasses a wide variety of technologies, ranging from 
the telephone to high-tech equipment that enables a surgeon to perform 
surgery from thousands of miles away. It includes interactive video 
equipment, fax machines and computers along with satellites and fiber 
optics. These technologies can be used to diagnose patients, deliver 
care, transfer health data, read X-rays, provide consultation and 
educate health professionals. Telehealth also includes the electronic 
storage and transmission of personally identifiable health information, 
such as medical records, test results, and insurance claims.
  The promise of telehealth is becoming increasingly apparent. 
Throughout the country, providers are experimenting with a variety of 
telehealth approaches in an effort to improve access to quality medical 
and other health-related services. Those programs are demonstrating 
that telecommunications technology can alleviate the constraints of 
time and distance, as well as the cost and inconvenience of 
transporting patients to medical providers. Many approaches show 
promising results in reducing health care costs and bringing adequate 
care to all Americans. For the first time, technological advances and 
the development of a national information infrastructure give 
telehealth the potential to overcome barriers to health care services 
for rural Americans and afford them the access that most Americans take 
for granted. But it is clear that our nation must do more to integrate 
telehealth into our overall health care delivery infrastructure.
  Because so many rural and underserved communities lack the ability to 
attract and support a wide variety of health care professionals and 
services, it is important to find a way to bring the most important 
medical services into those communities. Telehealth provides an 
important part of the answer. It helps bring services to remote areas 
in a quick, cost-effective manner, and can enable patients to avoid 
traveling long distances in order to receive health care treatment.
  We have made progress. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 includes a 
provision that provides for some Medicare reimbursement of telehealth 
services. Unfortunately, however, the Health Care Financing 
Administration interpreted the legislative language too narrowly and 
severely limited the services that are covered. This bill clarifies the 
intent of Congress regarding Medicare reimbursement and thereby 
increases access to these services in underserved areas.
  The first element of my proposal clarifies and expands Medicare 
reimbursement for telehealth. Medicare reimbursement policy is an 
essential component of helping to integrate telehealth into the health 
care infrastructure and is particularly important in rural areas, where 
many hospitals do as much as 80% of their business with Medicare 
patients. Because the Secretary defined reimbursable services so 
narrowly in the BBA, this legislation clarifies that all services that 
are covered under Medicare Part B if you drive to a doctor's office, 
are covered via telehealth. In particular, it clarifies that the 
technology called ``store and forward'', which is a cost-effective 
method of transferring information, is included in this reimbursement 
policy. Finally, this bill expands coverage from health professional 
shortage areas, as enacted in 1997, to cover all rural areas.
  The second element of this proposal asks the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to submit a report to the Congress on the status of 
efforts to

[[Page S3638]]

ease licensing burdens on practitioners who cross state lines in the 
course of supplying telehealth services. Currently, consultation by 
almost any licensed health professional in this situation requires that 
the practitioner be licensed in both states.
  In talking with telehealth providers in my state, and with experts on 
the Ad Hoc Committee, I have been told repeatedly that this is one of 
the most significant barriers to developing broad, integrated 
telehealth systems. More importantly, they tell me states have actively 
been using licensure to close their borders to innovative telehealth 
practice. Many states have taken legislative action to ensure that out-
of-state practitioners must be fully licensed in their state in order 
to provide telehealth services, even if they are fully licensed in 
their own state. During a discussion with a telehealth practitioner 
from my home state of North Dakota, I was told about a group of 
telehealth specialists who, among their small group practice, were 
licensed in more than thirty different states. That means they pay 
thirty different fees, are responsible for thirty different continuing 
education requirements, and are overseen by thirty different regulatory 
bodies. This is a costly and burdensome procedure for many 
practitioners, but the burden falls particularly heavily on rural 
practitioners, who face long travel times to acquire continuing 
education, and who frequently run on lower profit margins than urban 
practitioners.

  While I am not prepared at this time to propose that the federal 
government get involved with professional licensure, I have asked the 
Secretary to study the issue and report to Congress yearly on the 
status of efforts by states and other interested organizations to 
address this issue. This will allow us to reach out to the states and 
work together to find solutions to cross-state licensure concerns. As 
part of this report, I have asked to the Secretary to make 
recommendations to Congress, if appropriate, about possible federal 
action to lower the licensure barrier.
  A third element of my proposal involves coordination of the Federal 
telehealth effort. The Department of Health and Human Services has 
created an informal interagency task force that is examining our 
federal agency telehealth efforts. This group reported on Federal 
activities related to telehealth and provided a thorough examination of 
many of the important issues in telehealth.
  My bill attempts to use that task force to inventory Federal activity 
on telehealth and related technology, determine what applications have 
been found successful, and recommend an overall Federal policy approach 
to telehealth. Many departments and agencies of the Federal government 
are engaged in telehealth activity, including the Veterans 
Administration, Department of Defense, Department of Agriculture, 
Office for the Advancement of Telehealth, and many others. The more 
these agencies work together to coordinate the Federal effort and 
consolidate Federal resources, the more effective the Federal 
government will be in contributing to telehealth in a positive way. I 
believe this is especially important in light of the GAO report calling 
for an expanded role for this group and more coordination of telehealth 
issues across the Federal agencies. The efforts of this group, along 
with the ongoing activities of the Congressional Ad Hoc Steering 
Committee, will provide a renewed focus for telehealth across the 
Federal government. Such coordination will also help protect the 
American taxpayer from unnecessary duplication of effort.
  The fourth part of my proposal helps communities build home-grown 
telehealth networks. It attempts both to build a telehealth 
infrastructure and foster rural economic development and incorporates 
many of the most important lessons learned from other grant projects 
and studies on telehealth from across the Federal government.
  Clearly, the scarcity of resources in many rural communities requires 
that the coordination and use of those resources be maximized. My bill 
encourages cooperation by various local entities in an effort to help 
build sustainable telehealth programs in rural communities. It plants 
seed money to encourage health care providers to join with other 
segments of the community to jointly use telecommunications resources. 
Using a unique loan forgiveness program, it rewards telehealth systems 
that supply appropriate, high-quality care while reducing overall 
health care costs.
  Most importantly, it does not create a system where various 
technological approaches are imposed upon communities. Rather it 
enables potential grantees to determine user-friendly approaches that 
work best for them. This home-grown approach to developing user-
friendly telehealth systems, as well as the preference for coordinating 
resources within communities, will help ensure the long-term viability 
of such programs after the grant expires.
  Mr. President, my proposal continues our national efforts to 
integrate telecommunications technology into the rapidly evolving 
health care delivery system. I am very encouraged by the positive 
feedback I have received from telehealth networks across the country. I 
have continued to work with telehealth networks and representatives to 
strengthen this proposal. As a result, I have made several changes in 
the bill that I believe will make this a stronger proposal. But, as 
with any complex issue, I understand that some may prefer different 
approaches. I would like to continue to encourage all interested 
parties to come forward with creative solutions to these important 
issues. It is my hope that telehealth legislation can be included in 
the comprehensive rural health care legislation in this Congress so we 
can continue to improve access to needed health care services for rural 
and underserved populations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB:
  S. 771. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize 
the memorialization at the columbarium at Arlington National Cemetery 
of veterans who have donated their remains to science, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


                          VETERANS LEGISLATION

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, late last summer, a Virginian contacted my 
office to request my intervention in a matter which had brought 
considerable anguish and frustration to her family.

  She informed me that her father, a decorated veteran of World War II 
and a career civil servant, had recently passed away. Before his death, 
however, he made two simple requests: one, that his body be donated to 
science, and two, that his ashes be placed in the Arlington National 
Cemetery. His widow, now 72, honored the first of those wishes. But in 
honoring the first request, she found out that the second was 
precluded.
  The family learned that, due to various legal concerns, ashes of 
organ donors who donate their bodies to science are not returned to the 
families of the donors. Unfortunately, due to the regulations governing 
Arlington National Cemetery, veterans cannot be memorialized in the 
Columbarium unless their remains are actually inurned there. Oddly, it 
so happens that if his spouse had predeceased him, her remains would 
already have been inurned in a niche at Arlington, awaiting his 
remains.
  While I can appreciate that limited space at Arlington has 
necessitated adherence to strict guidelines for burial and 
memorialization, I cannot see the virtue in denying appropriate 
recognition for an entitled veteran simply because he has donated his 
remains to science. In fact, I would like to encourage more veterans to 
do just that.
  All of us recognize the great need for viable remains for both 
transplantation and for medical study. Veterans who make this 
courageous commitment should be suitably recognized and their loved 
ones should know that a grateful nation has made a place for them at 
one of our country's most sacred memorials.
  With that said, I submit this bill which seeks to modify current 
regulations to allow otherwise qualified veterans, who have donated 
their remains to science, to be memorialized at the Columbarium in 
Arlington National Cemetery, notwithstanding the absence of their 
cremated remains.
  Mr. President, I salute these veterans and their devoted families, 
and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 771

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page S3639]]

     SECTION 1. MEMORIALIZATION AT COLUMBARIUM AT ARLINGTON 
                   NATIONAL CEMETERY OF VETERANS WHO HAVE DONATED 
                   THEIR REMAINS TO SCIENCE.

       (a) Authority To Memorialize.--(1) Chapter 24 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 2412. Arlington National Cemetery: memorialization at 
       columbarium of veterans who have donated their remains to 
       science

       ``The Secretary of the Army may honor, by marker or other 
     appropriate means at the columbarium at Arlington National 
     Cemetery, the memory of any veteran eligible for inurnment in 
     the columbarium whose cremated remains cannot be inurned in 
     the columbarium as a result of the donation of the veteran's 
     organs or remains for medical or scientific purposes.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of that chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

``2412. Arlington National Cemetery: memorialization at columbarium of 
              veterans who have donated their remains to science.''.

       (b) Applicability.--Section 2412 of title 38, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply to veterans who 
     die on or after January 1, 1996.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB:
  S. 772. A bill to amend section 8339(p) of title 5, United States 
Code, to clarify the computations of certain civil service retirement 
system annuities based on part-time service, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


        CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ANNUITIES CLARIFICATION

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will 
correct current calculations of federal retirement annuities that 
unfairly penalizes federal civil servants who switch to part-time 
service at the end of their careers.
  The Congress included provisions in the 1986 Civil Service amendments 
contained in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that 
reformed the part-time service calculations for retirement, so that 
part-time workers would not receive the same annuities as full-time 
workers. I believe that was a fair and equitable reform. However, after 
receiving a letter from one of my fellow Virginians, L. David Jones, it 
is clear that there have been errors in the interpretation of the 
provision.
  Mr. Jones worked for the Naval Research Lab until his retirement in 
February, 1995. He worked there full-time for 30 years and part-time 
for five years after his 30 years of full-time service. He elected 
part-time service at the end of his career to not only to ease into 
retirement, but to help his colleagues better manage an increased 
workload. But because of the misinterpretation of the provision, he 
would have been better off retiring at the end of his 30 years. Instead 
of being praised for his additional service, his situation now serves 
as a cautionary tale for others who wish to transition into retirement 
and help their colleagues: if you switch to part-time service after a 
long career as a full-time worker, your annuities will be reduced. 
Clearly, that is not the intent of the provision.
  Mr. Jones and his wife sought judicial remedies to no avail. He and 
his family simply want his annuity calculated accurately. That is why I 
am introducing this legislation today.
  Mr. President, by passing this legislation we will ensure that 
federal retirees like Mr. Jones and others are not unjustly penalized 
for working part-time at the end of their careers. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on the Government Affairs Committee to 
ensure its consideration and favorable recommendation as quickly as 
possible.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 772

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ANNUITY 
                   COMPUTATIONS BASED ON PART-TIME SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Section 8339(p) of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) In the administration of paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) subparagraph (A) of such paragraph shall apply to any 
     service performed on a part-time basis before, on, or after 
     April 7, 1986;
       ``(B) subparagraph (B) of such paragraph shall apply to all 
     service performed on a part-time or full-time basis on or 
     after April 7, 1986; and
       ``(C) any service performed on a part-time basis before 
     April 7, 1986, shall be credited as service performed on a 
     full-time basis.''.
       (b) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendment 
     made under subsection (a) shall apply to the computation of 
     any annuity with a date of commencement on or after April 7, 
     1986.
       (2) Annuity payments.--The computation of an annuity based 
     on the amendment made under subsection (a) shall apply only 
     with respect to annuity payments made on or after the first 
     day of the first applicable pay period beginning 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX:
  S. 773. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the active business definition relating to distributions of stock and 
securities of controlled corporations; to the Committee on Finance.


          Amendment to Internal Revenue Code Section 355(b)(2)

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to again introduce a bill 
that would make a technical change in the Internal Revenue Code. We 
often talk about the need to simplify the Tax Code. The change I 
propose today would do that.
  This change is small but very important. It would not alter the 
substance of current law in any way. It would, however, greatly 
simplify a common corporate transaction. This small technical change 
will alone save corporations millions of dollars in unnecessary 
expenses and economic costs that are incurred when they divide their 
businesses.
  The Treasury Department agrees that there is a technical problem with 
the drafting of the Tax Code and has agreed to work with me on this 
proposal. In fact, the President included a similar provision to 
correct this problem in his budget. I am introducing today the same 
bill I introduced during the last session of Congress, but expect to 
work with Treasury to perfect the language and make sure that 
corporations are not further hampered by this problem.
  Corporations, and affiliated groups of corporations, often find it 
advantageous, or even necessary, to separate two or more businesses. 
The division of AT&T from its local telephone companies is an example 
of such a transaction. The reasons for these corporate divisions are 
many, but probably chief among them is the ability of management to 
focus on one core business.
  At the end of the day, when a corporation divides, the stockholders 
simply have the stock of two corporations, instead of one. The Tax Code 
recognizes this is not an event that should trigger tax, as it includes 
corporate divisions among the tax-free reorganization provisions.
  One requirement the Tax Code imposes on corporate divisions is very 
awkwardly drafted, however. As a result, an affiliated group of 
corporations that wishes to divide must often engage in complex and 
burdensome preliminary reorganizations in order to accomplish what, for 
a single corporate entity, would be a rather simple and straightforward 
spinoff of a business to its shareholders. The small technical change I 
propose today would eliminate the need for these unnecessary 
transactions, while keeping the statute true to Congress's original 
purpose.
  More specifically, section 355 (and related provisions of the Code) 
permits a corporation or an affiliated group of corporations to divide 
on a tax-free basis into two or more separate entities with separate 
businesses. There are numerous requirements for tax-free treatment of a 
corporate division, or ``spinoff,'' including continuity of historical 
shareholder interest, continuity of the business enterprises, business 
purpose, and absence of any device to distribute earnings and profits. 
In addition, section 355 requires that each of the divided corporate 
entities be engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business. The 
proposed change would alter none of these substantive requirements of 
the Code.
  Section 355(b)(2)(A) currently provides an attribution or 
``lookthrough'' rule for groups of corporations that operate active 
businesses under a holding company, which is necessary because a 
holding company, by definition, is not itself engaged in an active 
business.

[[Page S3640]]

 This lookthrough rule inexplicably requires, however, that 
``substantially all'' of the assets of the holding company consist of 
stock of active controlled subsidiaries. The practical effect of this 
language is to prevent holding companies from engaging in spinoffs if 
they own almost any other assets. This is in sharp contrast to 
corporations that operate businesses directly, which can own 
substantial assets unrelated to the business and still engage in tax-
free spinoff transactions.
  In the real world, of course, holding companies may, for many sound 
business reasons, hold other assets, such as non-controlling (less than 
80 percent) interests in subsidiaries, controlled subsidiaries that 
have been owned for less than five years (which are not considered 
``active businesses'' under section 355), or a host of nonbusiness 
assets. Such holding companies routinely undertake spinoff 
transactions, but because of the awkward language used in section 
355(b)(2)(A), they must first undertake one or more (often a series of) 
preliminary reorganizations solely for the purpose of complying with 
this inexplicable language of the Code.
  Such preliminary reorganizations are at best costly, burdensome, and 
without any business purpose, and at worst, they seriously interfere 
with business operations. In a few cases, they may be so costly as to 
be prohibitive, and cause the company to abandon an otherwise sound 
business transaction that is clearly in the best interest of the 
corporation and the businesses it operates.
  There is no tax policy reason, tax advisors agree, to require the 
reorganization of a consolidated group that is clearly engaged in the 
active conduct of a trade or business, as a condition to a spinoff. Nor 
is there any reason to treat affiliated groups differently than single 
operating companies. Indeed, no one has ever suggested one. The 
legislative history indicates Congress was concerned about non-
controlled subsidiaries, which is elsewhere adequately addressed, not 
consolidated groups.
  For many purposes, the Tax Code treats affiliated groups as a single 
corporation. Therefore, the simple remedy I am proposing today for the 
problem created by the awkward language of section 355(b)(2)(A) is to 
apply the active business test to an affiliated group as if it were a 
single entity.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 773

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF ACTIVE BUSINESS DEFINITION.

       (a) In General.--Section 355(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining active conduct of a trade or business) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes 
     of subparagraph (A), all corporations that are members of the 
     same affiliated group (as defined in section 1504(a)) shall 
     be treated as a single corporation.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to distributions or transfer after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX:
  S. 774. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the deduction for meal and entertainment expenses of small businesses; 
to the Committee on Finance.


              Business Meal Deduction for Small Businesses

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important 
bill for small businesses in Louisiana and throughout our country that 
I also introduced during the 105th Congress. My bill would restore the 
80 percent deduction for business meals and entertainment expenses, 
thus eliminating a tax burden that has seriously hampered many small 
businesses in our country.
  Small business is a powerful economic engine, both nationwide and in 
Louisiana. Small businesses have helped to create the prosperity that 
we have all enjoyed in the last few years. They are leaders in the 
innovation and technology development that will sustain our economy in 
the 21st century. Nationwide, small business employs 53 percent of the 
private work force, contributes 47 percent of all sales in the country, 
and is responsible for 50 percent of the private gross domestic 
product.
  For these reasons, I believe the tax code should encourage, not 
discourage, small business development and growth. For the more than 
225,000 self-employed and for the thousands of small businesses in 
Louisiana, business meals and entertainment take the place of 
advertising, marketing, and conference meetings. These expenses are a 
core business development cost. As such, a large percentage of these 
costs should be deductible.
  For many years, businesses were allowed to deduct 100 percent of 
business meals and entertainment expenses. In 1987, this deduction was 
reduced to 80 percent. The deduction was further reduced in 1994 to 50 
percent because of the misconception that these meals were ``three 
martini lunches.''
  Contrary to this perception, studies show that the primary 
beneficiary of the business meal deduction is not the wealthy business 
person. Studies indicate that over two-thirds of the business meal 
spenders have incomes of less than $60,000 and 37 percent have incomes 
below $40,000. Low to moderately priced restaurants are the most 
popular types for business meals, with the average check equaling less 
than $20. In addition, 50 percent of most business meals occur in small 
towns and rural areas.
  In 1995, just one year after the deduction was reduced to 50 percent, 
the White House Conference on Small Business established the 
restoration of the deduction as one of its top priorities for boosting 
small business. In Louisiana alone, it is expected that the positive 
economic impact of this proposal could exceed $67 million in 
industries, such as the travel and restaurant industry, that employ 
over 120,000 people. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI:
  S. 775. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to conduct a feasibility study for applying airport 
bubbles as a method of identifying, assessing, and reducing the adverse 
environmental impacts of airport ground and flight operations and 
improving the overall quality of the environment, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


             The Right To Know About Airport Pollution Act

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Right To 
Know About Airport Pollution Act, and ask that my remarks be placed in 
the Record at the appropriate place. This important legislation will 
allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in conjunction with 
the FAA, to conduct a nationwide study of air, water, solid waste and 
noise pollution generated by airports across the U.S. every day. In 
addition, the bill will direct the EPA to determine whether current air 
emission standards are sufficient to protect the environment, and will 
require airports to be listed under Community Right To Know laws 
governing the use of hazardous materials.
  Many of my colleagues and I hear everyday from constituents who are 
concerned by the pollution, including noise pollution, created by 
airports in our states. In 1996, a Natural Resources Defense Council 
(NRDC) report confirmed that US airports rival smokestack industries in 
the amount of pollution they release into the environment. This growing 
problem affects every state in our nation and millions of our 
constituents. You do not have to be from a state with a large airport 
to understand that pollution associated with these facilities severely 
affects the health and impacts the quality of life of our constituents.
  While we must recognize that airport expansion is an inevitable by-
product of a vibrant economy, and that the government has a 
responsibility to foster economic growth and jobs, we also have an 
equal responsibility to mitigate the hazardous affects of pollution and 
noise on our constituents. The studies produced as a result of this 
legislation will give us a better idea as to the magnitude of the 
pollution problem caused by airports, and will allow us to prepare a 
commensurate response.
  Again, I would like to thank my colleagues who have demonstrated 
interest in this issue and look forward to the passage of this 
important legislation.

[[Page S3641]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FITZGERALD:
  S. 777. A bill to require the Department of Agriculture to establish 
an electronic filing and retrieval system to enable the public to file 
all required paperwork electronically with the Department and to have 
access to public information on farm programs, quarterly trade, 
economic, and production reports, and other similar information; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                         freedom to e-file act

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to streamline the process our farmers follow when filing paper work 
with the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Currently, when farmers are 
required to fill out USDA paper work, they are required to travel to 
their local USDA county offices, complete the paper work, wait in long 
lines and file these documents in paper form. This process is very 
inefficient and time consuming.
  The bill that I introduce today simply requires USDA to develop a 
system for farmers to access and file this paper work over the 
internet. This legislation entitled the ``Freedom to E-file Act'' 
simply makes good common sense. As our society has become more 
technologically advanced so have our farmers. In fact, a 1998 Novartis 
survey found that over 72 percent of all farmers with 500 acres or more 
had personal computers. Overall, over fifty percent of all farmers 
surveyed had computers.
  Our agriculturalists use computers not only for financial management 
and market information but for sophisticated precision agriculture 
management systems. These sophisticated small business owners could 
easily file necessary farm program paperwork from their homes and 
offices if only this option was available.
  Farmers are often frustrated with the long lines at county USDA 
offices, especially during their most hectic times such as harvest 
season. Our nation's farmers are clearly overburdened by government-
required paperwork. This bill is the first step in the right direction 
toward regulatory reform for our U.S. food producers.
  This legislation is budget neutral and USDA would implement the bill 
using existing funds. I want to recognize and commend my colleague, 
Congressman Ray LaHood, for championing the companion to this bill in 
the House of Representatives. This bill should enjoy bipartisan 
support. I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring this bill 
important to our nation's farmers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 777

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom to E-File Act''.

     SEC. 2. ELECTRONIC FILING AND RETRIEVAL.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish an electronic filing and retrieval system to enable 
     the public to file all required paperwork electronically with 
     the Department of Agriculture and to have access to public 
     information on farm programs, quarterly trade, economic, and 
     production reports, and other similar information.
       (b) Progress Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to 
     Congress on the progress made toward implementing subsection 
     (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Moynihan, and 
        Mr. Schumer):
  S. 779. A bill to provide that no Federal income tax shall be imposed 
on amounts received by Holocaust victims or their heirs; to the 
Committee on Finance.


             holocaust era assets tax exclusion act of 1999

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Holocaust Era Assets Tax Exclusion Act of 1999, along with my 
colleagues Senators Moynihan and Schumer. Mr. President, survivors of 
the Holocaust who had assets withheld from them by Swiss banks or 
others have finally received justice in the form of a settlement 
between the banks and the survivor's attorneys in August 1998. The 
settlement was for $1.25 billion for survivors worldwide. This 
settlement will finally return the assets to survivors more than fifty 
years after they first entrusted them to the banks.
  In addition to these recipients, there are survivors who are needy 
and have received one-time payments from the Swiss Humanitarian Fund 
established by the Swiss government. In both cases, any payment from 
the Swiss banks or other similar sources like this, should be excluded 
from taxation because they are receiving back what was rightfully 
theirs to begin with. The sum total of payments coming to the needy 
Holocaust survivors in the United States from this fund is $31.4 
million.
  Moreover, funds are being established by banks and corporations in 
France, Austria, Italy, and Germany to compensate claimants for 
wrongfully held bank deposits, insurance policies, slave labor, and 
other losses.
  Survivors who have sued banks, insurance companies, and manufacturers 
which profited from slave labor during the Holocaust, did so because 
there was no other way for them to seek justice. Deprived of their 
assets, or those of their families for over fifty years, survivors 
fought unsuccessfully until now to receive what belonged to them.
  With the average age of Holocaust survivors at 80, there is little 
time for debate over these payments which will ease life for the 
survivors in their final years. To tax them for the long overdue 
receipt of assets would be wrong and immoral. What these survivors will 
receive from the various funds will be money that is rightfully theirs 
in the first place.
  The survivors of man's greatest inhumanity to man deserve justice. 
After escaping death at the hands of the Nazis, they were again 
victimized by European bankers and insurers. Those who endured the 
tortures of slave labor have never been compensated for their servitude 
to the Nazis. Now that they have received some measure of justice, let 
us not make them wait any longer for what is rightfully theirs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record,  as follows:

                                 S. 779

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY 
                   HOLOCAUST VICTIMS OR THEIR HEIRS.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986, gross income shall not include any amount received 
     by an individual (or any heir of the individual)--
       (1) from the Swiss Humanitarian Fund established by the 
     Government of Switzerland or from any similar fund 
     established by any foreign country, or
       (2) as a result of the settlement of the action entitled 
     ``In re Holocaust Victims' Asset Litigation'', (E.D. NY), 
     C.A. No. 96-4849, or as a result of any similar action.
       (b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to any amount 
     received before, on, or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Fitzgerald, 
Moynihan, and Schumer in introducing this important legislation, which 
would prevent the federal government from taxing away any monies 
obtained by Holocaust survivors or their families in a settlement 
related to thefts by the Nazis or their sympathizers.
  The horrors of the Nazi regime and its atrocities remain very much 
with us. Many people in America and around the world, particularly 
Jews, must live every day with memories of atrocities suffered or 
witnessed, either by themselves or by those they love, during the Nazi 
terror. Ghettoes, death camps and simple murder were the stuff of daily 
life for millions of innocent people during this terrible time of Nazi 
power.
  Only recently has public attention been properly directed toward 
another great crime of the Nazi regime and those who cooperated with 
it: A 1998 study by the Institute of the World Jewish Congress 
estimates that between $90 billion and $140 billion in today's dollars 
was stolen from the Jewish populations of countries occupied by the 
Nazis. In addition to committing outright theft and looting, the Nazis 
seized liquid assets that could be converted easily into cash, such as 
insurance policy proceeds and bank accounts. Documents discovered by 
Risk International Services, Inc., an insurance archaeology firm, show 
that the Nazis specifically targeted insurance policies held by Jews as 
a source of

[[Page S3642]]

funding for their expansionist, totalitarian regime.
  Some insurance companies also specifically (and illegally) targeted 
Jewish families. Knowing that Jewish policy holders soon would be taken 
to concentration camps, these firms sold specifically tailored 
policies, taking as much cash as possible up front, with no intention 
of honoring their obligations.
  After the war, Holocaust survivors attempted to collect on their 
policies, access their bank accounts and/or reclaim assets that had 
been illegally seized. Unfortunately, governments, banks and insurance 
companies failed to fulfill their duty to treat Holocaust victims with 
justice and dignity. Instead, Mr. President, they refused to honor 
policies or return stolen assets. In this way they compounded crime 
with crime and denied people who already had suffered more than most of 
us could bear the rightful means by which to rebuild their lives.
  Finally, after over 50 years of injustice, Holocaust survivors and 
their families are reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. But, even as 
we support these efforts to reclaim stolen property, I believe we must 
do our part in protecting the proceeds. Under current law, any money 
received by Holocaust survivors in their settlements with banks and 
other organizations that once cooperated with the Nazis would be 
treated as gross income for federal tax purposes.
  Mr. President, I firmly believe that victims of the Holocaust have 
suffered far too much for any such taxation to be just. These 
settlements represent but a fraction of what is owed to those who 
suffered under Nazi tyranny. To treat them as income subject to 
taxation would be wrong.
  This is why this legislation is so important. It will prevent the 
federal government from taxing away any monies obtained by Holocaust 
survivors or their families in a settlement related to thefts by the 
Nazis or their sympathizers. It will prevent yet another injustice from 
being done to those who survived the brutal Nazi regime. It will also 
keep our nation firmly on the side of justice.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 781. A bill to amend section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, 
to revise the consent exception to the prohibition on the interception 
of oral, wire, or electronic communications that is applicable to 
telephone communications; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                     Telephone Privacy Act of 1999

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the 
``Telephone Privacy Act of 1999.'' This legislation would prohibit the 
recording of a telephone call unless all the parties on the call have 
given their consent.
  I am introducing this bill because our nation's telephone privacy 
laws are confused and in conflict. We need a national law governing 
telephone privacy so that telephone users have a uniform standard to 
rely on.
  Currently, thirty-seven states require only the consent of one party 
to record a phone call. Fifteen states require the consent of all 
parties to be taped. This jumbled collection of telephone privacy laws 
leaves most consumers confused about their rights to protect their 
phone calls from surreptitious taping.
  Today, consumers who seek to block surreptitious taping of their 
phone calls face an incredible burden. The problem is especially acute 
during interstate calls because the legality of surreptitiously 
recording a phone call depends on the state where the call is recorded. 
Thus, when a party makes an interstate call, one's rights may depend on 
the laws governing taping in other states.
  The recent well-publicized taping of Monica Lewinsky's phone 
conversations by Linda Tripp illustrates this problem. Maryland, where 
Linda Tripp recorded the conversations, is a state that requires the 
consent of all parties. However, Washington D.C., where Monica Lewinsky 
lived at the time, requires only one-party consent. Two people living 
within a half-hours drive from each other should have the same laws 
apply to them.
  In practice, any person who wants to protect herself against 
surreptitious recording must know the telephone privacy laws of other 
states. Our laws cannot reasonably expect a consumer to have this 
knowledge. People who make lots of interstate calls might be forced 
into the position of knowing the telephone privacy laws of all 50 
states.
  Not only will the Telephone Privacy Act of 1999 promote uniformity of 
laws, it will also create a standard that better protects privacy. The 
Telephone Privacy Act would require an all-party consent standard for 
taping phone calls no matter where one lived in the United States. It 
would end the practice of one-party consent that exists under Federal 
law and in a number of states.
  While surreptitious taping has legitimate uses, such as lawful 
surveillance by the police, our laws should not reward the practice of 
surreptitious taping. This practice violates individual privacy and 
offends common decency.
  Phone calls remain one of the few avenues of communication where 
people still feel safe enough to have intimate conversations. We should 
protect this expectation of privacy. If a telephone user intends to 
tape a phone call, the other party on the line ought to be informed.
  Moreover, the one-party consent standard is an anachronism. It is 
inconsistent with other more privacy-respecting provisions of our 
communication laws. Federal law makes it a felony, for example, for a 
third party to tap or record a telephone conversation between others. 
It is also a felony to surreptitiously tape a cellular telephone call.
  The bill has been carefully drafted so that it does not affect the 
rights of law enforcement officials to tape or monitor conversations as 
they are carrying out their duties.
  Nor does it affect the practice of businesses taping customer calls, 
as long as the customer is notified at the outset that the call is 
being taped. It also does not affect the right of people to 
surreptitiously tape threatening or harassing phone calls.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 781

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Telephone Privacy Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. REVISION OF CONSENT EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITION ON 
                   INTERCEPTION OF ORAL, WIRE, OR ELECTRONIC 
                   COMMUNICATIONS APPLICABLE TO TELEPHONE 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       Paragraph (d) of section 2511(2) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``unless such communication'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``unless--
       ``(i) such communication is intercepted for the purpose of 
     committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the 
     Constutition or laws of the United States or of any State; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a telephone communication, any other 
     party to such communication has not given prior consent to 
     such interception.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 782. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to modify the 
exception to the prohibition on the interception of wire, oral, or 
electronic communications to require a health insurance issuer, health 
plan, or health care provider obtain an enrollee's or patient's consent 
to their interception, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.

                          ____________________